3 ms·

"If Facebook is found guilty, it will face a maximum penalty of A$126,000 ($90,000) on each of three charges" Would they even find it worth employing a lawyer

"If Facebook is found guilty, it will face a maximum penalty of A$126,000 ($90,000) on each of three charges" Would they even find it worth employing a lawyer to defend it?

zdragnar 5y ago
If found guilty, I imagine it would set a precedent that opens the floodgates for a great many more to follow. I don't know much about the AU legal system; if this were the US they would likely try to get the prosecutors to drop the case / settle out of court in exchange for a vague promise to do better.
- glaucon 5y ago
  Not a lawyer and not an Australian but isn't the whole point that there isn't a prosecutor in this situation. The miner has hired a lawyer to prosecute the case on his behalf ?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- incompatible 5y ago
  A precedent that a publisher is responsible for ads that it publishes? I expect that it already exists. They may as well plead guilty and promise at the sentencing that they are improving their systems so that it won't happen (much) ever again. Edit: in this case, the charges seem to be a bit more involved, such as money laundering. I suppose publishing misleading ads has been happening for a long time, and I don't know exactly what laws apply. Plenty of people may have been scammed buying dodgy used cars in classified ads, for example.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Once one firm has established how to do it and win it basically becomes open season for anyone to follow the exact same playbook. Even if you don't necessarily lose the other ones, simply spending money on lawyers to get dozens or hundreds or thousands of copycat lawsuits dismissed is a huge hassle. There's a reason why personal injury and mesothelioma ads get placed on the radio and TV so often in the US; "you may be entitled to financial compensation" and all that.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    A used car is a used car. Caveat emptor beyond that. Apple support line must be a support line for Apple. Using someone's likeness means they have approved to have their likeness used. Even if these things are already illegal, and even if the publishers are nominally responsible for not allowing illegal advertisements, at least there will be a precedent of these kinds of scams actually getting prosecuted. There needs to be an actual injunction against further fraud, meaning every instance is a liability, rather than what is most likely going to be a slap on the wrist. One can dream, I guess.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  I'd imagine Twiggy doesn't need the money and it establishing that precedent and will not settle.
justahuman74 5y ago
Yeah cause the local politicians will jump onto the outrage and hammer fb with annoying regulations
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
How would being convicted of a criminal offence be insignificant for FB?
- incompatible 5y ago
  There are some industries where the occasional criminal charge seems to be treated as the cost of doing business, banking for example.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Yes it still 270k , that's a lot of lawyer hours and they might become open to the same penalties in other jurisdictions. If you calculate times 100nations and an increased volume plus the PR hit, it's best to delegate to legal.

"If Facebook is found guilty, it will face a maximum penalty of A$126,000 ($90,000) on each of three charges" Would they even find it worth employing a lawyer to defend it?

zdragnar 5y ago

If found guilty, I imagine it would set a precedent that opens the floodgates for a great many more to follow. I don't know much about the AU legal system; if this were the US they would likely try to get the prosecutors to drop the case / settle out of court in exchange for a vague promise to do better.

glaucon 5y ago
Not a lawyer and not an Australian but isn't the whole point that there isn't a prosecutor in this situation. The miner has hired a lawyer to prosecute the case on his behalf ?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
incompatible 5y ago
A precedent that a publisher is responsible for ads that it publishes? I expect that it already exists. They may as well plead guilty and promise at the sentencing that they are improving their systems so that it won't happen (much) ever again. Edit: in this case, the charges seem to be a bit more involved, such as money laundering. I suppose publishing misleading ads has been happening for a long time, and I don't know exactly what laws apply. Plenty of people may have been scammed buying dodgy used cars in classified ads, for example.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Once one firm has established how to do it and win it basically becomes open season for anyone to follow the exact same playbook. Even if you don't necessarily lose the other ones, simply spending money on lawyers to get dozens or hundreds or thousands of copycat lawsuits dismissed is a huge hassle. There's a reason why personal injury and mesothelioma ads get placed on the radio and TV so often in the US; "you may be entitled to financial compensation" and all that.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  A used car is a used car. Caveat emptor beyond that. Apple support line must be a support line for Apple. Using someone's likeness means they have approved to have their likeness used. Even if these things are already illegal, and even if the publishers are nominally responsible for not allowing illegal advertisements, at least there will be a precedent of these kinds of scams actually getting prosecuted. There needs to be an actual injunction against further fraud, meaning every instance is a liability, rather than what is most likely going to be a slap on the wrist. One can dream, I guess.
hackerfromthefu 5y ago
I'd imagine Twiggy doesn't need the money and it establishing that precedent and will not settle.

justahuman74 5y ago

Yeah cause the local politicians will jump onto the outrage and hammer fb with annoying regulations

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

How would being convicted of a criminal offence be insignificant for FB?

incompatible 5y ago
There are some industries where the occasional criminal charge seems to be treated as the cost of doing business, banking for example.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

Yes it still 270k , that's a lot of lawyer hours and they might become open to the same penalties in other jurisdictions. If you calculate times 100nations and an increased volume plus the PR hit, it's best to delegate to legal.